ACXLW Meetup 85 1) “Bureaucracy Isn’t Measured in Bureaucrats” & 2) “How the US Used Science to Wage Psychological War”

Date: Saturday, February 1, 2025
Time: 2:00 PM – 5:00 PM
Location: 1970 Port Laurent Place, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Host: Michael Michalchik
Contact: michaelmichalchik@gmail.com | (949) 375-2045

Introduction and Overview

This session features two distinct topics that converge around the theme of how bureaucratic or institutional influence shapes policy and public perception:

1. Scott Alexander’s article explores the nature of administrative and legal friction—how it really works, why simply “firing half the bureaucrats” might backfire, and how incentives around litigation and Congressional mandates drive ever-increasing complexity in agencies like the FDA.
2. Annalee Newitz’s piece delves into the long history of U.S. psychological warfare, from 19th-century anthropologists on the battlefield to modern data-driven influence campaigns. It examines how government agencies (and sometimes private industry) harness “cutting-edge science” to manipulate or influence minds—both abroad and at home.

These conversations should deepen our understanding of how large institutions, whether civil or military, can become unwieldy or wield profound power over society’s direction—often in subtle, behind-the-scenes ways.

Conversation Starter 1

Topic: “Bureaucracy Isn’t Measured in Bureaucrats” by Scott Alexander

• Text Link:
  Bureaucracy Isn't Measured In Bureaucrats
• Audio Link (YouTube):
  Bureaucracy Isn't Measured In Bureaucrats

Extended Summary

In this article, Scott Alexander responds to a now-deleted Vivek Ramaswamy tweet calling for “firing half of all bureaucrats” as a quick cure for the ills of red tape. Alexander argues that bureaucracy is not a simple function of staff count. Instead, layers of regulations, court challenges, and Congressional mandates (often called “red tape”) create mandatory processes. These processes remain the same, or even grow, regardless of how many employees are available to handle them. Fewer staff doesn’t necessarily reduce forms or procedures; it simply slows them down.

Key Points:

1. Staff vs. Process
   • Many agencies (like the FDA) have to produce exhaustive evidence to avoid lawsuits from interest groups or industry. This complexity is set by laws and court precedent, not by the whim of office managers. Halving staff doesn’t remove steps; it just delays the outcome.
2. Court Challenges & Legislative Mandates
   • Environmental groups, industries, or other stakeholders can sue. Courts require thorough justification for any regulatory decision, incentivizing agencies to produce reams of documentation. Meanwhile, each new law from Congress adds a fresh compliance dimension.
3. Approval vs. Ban-Focused Bureaucracies
   • Alexander notes a subtlety: some agencies primarily “approve” (e.g. FDA letting new drugs come to market) while others primarily “deny” (some forms of regulation). In theory, cutting staff for ban-focused bureaucracies might reduce how much they can ban—but in practice, it can as easily cause confusion or slow attempts to regulate or un-regulate.
4. Real Solutions
   • Alexander distinguishes “fewer bureaucrats” from “fewer or simpler rules.” Real changes might require rolling back laws that drive administrative sprawl or limiting the ability to sue over regulatory decisions. However, these are politically complex tasks, far more so than layoffs.
5. Idaho as a Counterexample?
   • He cites Idaho’s recent success in slashing many outdated regulations. But, he wonders, how many of these cuts were cosmetic (e.g. “rules about a nonexistent state lottery TV show”) vs. impactful? The path to meaningful red tape reduction may require painstaking reviews and legislative changes—things that can’t be solved by a single stroke.

Deep Discussion Questions

1. Processes vs. People:
   • Alexander suggests that if you want fewer hoops, you need to change the hoops, not just the number of staff. Do you see real-world scenarios where staff cuts do reduce bureaucratic friction, or is it mostly naive to conflate the two?
2. Legal Overhang & Fear of Lawsuits:
   • How does the constant threat of litigation shape agency decision-making? Are there ways to prevent excessive lawsuits without undermining checks on government power?
3. Idaho’s Experiment:
   • Is Idaho’s success scalable? Could a large federal agency realistically prune decades of accumulated mandates as quickly? Or are the politics (and inertia) insurmountable?
4. Reform Approaches:
   • Alexander highlights that the real culprit is the complex web of regulations mandated by Congress or the courts. If meaningful red-tape reform is the true solution, where might such a campaign gain traction? And are we prepared for the possible downsides (e.g., under-regulation)?

Conversation Starter 2

Topic: “How the US Used Science to Wage Psychological War” by Annalee Newitz

• Text Link:
  Full Article by Annalee Newitz
• Optional Extra Reading:
  Wikipedia: Psychological Operations (United States)

(No audio link provided.)

Extended Summary

Annalee Newitz’s essay tracks the long history of U.S. “psy ops” (psychological operations)—from rudimentary 18th-century propaganda to advanced 21st-century digital campaigns. She contends that while many countries have engaged in psychological warfare, the U.S. has carved out a distinctive approach by blending “cutting-edge science” with political and cultural infiltration. Key eras illustrate how the government’s “rational approach” to propaganda draws on anthropology, psychology, marketing, and advanced analytics:

1. 19th-Century Roots: Anthropologists on the Battlefield
   • The U.S. Army employed anthropologists during wars with Indigenous nations. Their mission included cataloging cultures and languages—ostensibly for academic study but functionally to facilitate conquest. This early synergy between science and warfare sowed seeds for modern psy ops.
2. World Wars & Freudian Marketing
   • Psy ops came into its own in the 20th century, relying on psychological theories to produce “rationally designed” propaganda. Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, exemplified this marriage of marketing acumen with intelligence services, orchestrating (or aiding) campaigns like the CIA-backed coup in Guatemala.
3. Modern Digital Spin-Offs
   • In the 21st century, data-driven “psychographic profiles” (as seen in the Cambridge Analytica scandal) or social media infiltration have replaced old-school leaflets and radio broadcasts. Instead of sending anthropologists to foreign battlefields, advanced AI or big-data analytics “map” human vulnerabilities—at scale.
4. Blurred Lines
   • Newitz notes that “psy ops” can loop back into domestic spheres. Culture wars, shaping news cycles, or quiet infiltration of a population’s worldview straddles the boundary between international propaganda and domestic persuasion. She highlights how the “rational approach” has moral hazards—once the state gains deep insight into cognition, it can more easily manipulate or mislead.
5. Efforts at Resistance
   • Some researchers propose transparency or “propaganda weather reports,” akin to forecast services that warn users about upcoming influence spikes on social media. Others preserve historical archives to reveal patterns of government infiltration. Despite these attempts, a robust strategy to quell psychological warfare remains elusive.

Deep Discussion Questions

1. Old-School vs. Digital Psy Ops:
   • From leaflets and embedded anthropologists to AI-driven manipulations, how has the core logic of controlling narratives stayed the same, and what’s truly new?
2. Ethical Boundaries:
   • Is there ever a justified “psy ops” campaign, especially if it’s used to avert harm or defuse extremist narratives? How do we reconcile the possibility of protective or “noble” misinformation?
3. Science as Double-Edged Sword:
   • Anthropological and psychological studies can yield legitimate insight into human cultures—but also enable powerful exploitation. Where should the lines be drawn? Are certain forms of research inherently prone to weaponization?
4. Domestic Overlap:
   • Although Newitz focuses on how the U.S. turned these techniques outward, modern controversies (e.g., Cambridge Analytica) show that lines blur easily. Should governments categorically ban “psy ops” on domestic citizens, or is that unenforceable in a networked age?

Walk & Talk

After exploring these themes, we’ll do our usual one-hour walk around the neighborhood. This more casual time fosters spontaneous questions, deeper connections, and fresh perspectives.

Share a Surprise

We’ll also have an “open-floor” segment: if you’ve read any eye-opening articles, had a perspective-altering personal experience, or discovered a fascinating fact, feel free to share. Varied topics are welcome.

Looking Ahead

As always, feel free to propose future topics or volunteer to host a specific reading. Our group thrives on diverse expertise, so if you have a focus—be it technology, policy, history, or beyond—we encourage you to bring it forward.

We Look Forward to Seeing You on February 1!

Questions, clarifications, or special requests? Contact Michael Michalchik (info above). Thanks for being part of ACXLW—together we’ll keep exploring the frontiers of thought, policy, and culture. See you soon!